26.04.2014 Views

(RFP) - Terminal Operator Services for the Statewide Fingerprint ...

(RFP) - Terminal Operator Services for the Statewide Fingerprint ...

(RFP) - Terminal Operator Services for the Statewide Fingerprint ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS<br />

STATEWIDE FINGERPRINT IMAGING SYSTEM (SFIS) TERMINAL OPERATOR SERVICES<br />

Department's sole discretion, be denied if <strong>the</strong> request does not satisfy<br />

all of <strong>the</strong> following criteria:<br />

1) The person or entity requesting a Proposed Contractor Selection<br />

Review is a Proposer;<br />

2) The request <strong>for</strong> a Proposed Contractor Selection Review is<br />

submitted timely (i.e., by <strong>the</strong> date and time specified by <strong>the</strong><br />

Department);<br />

3) The person or entity requesting a Proposed Contractor Selection<br />

Review asserts in appropriate detail with factual reasons one or<br />

more of <strong>the</strong> following grounds <strong>for</strong> review:<br />

a) The Department materially failed to follow procedures<br />

specified in its solicitation document. This includes:<br />

(i)<br />

Failure to correctly apply <strong>the</strong> standards <strong>for</strong> reviewing <strong>the</strong><br />

proposal <strong>for</strong>mat requirements.<br />

(ii) Failure to correctly apply <strong>the</strong> standards, and/or follow<br />

<strong>the</strong> prescribed methods, <strong>for</strong> evaluating <strong>the</strong> proposals as<br />

specified in <strong>the</strong> solicitation document.<br />

(iii) Use of evaluation criteria that were different from <strong>the</strong><br />

evaluation criteria disclosed in <strong>the</strong> solicitation<br />

document.<br />

b) The Department made identifiable ma<strong>the</strong>matical or o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

errors in evaluating proposals, resulting in <strong>the</strong> Proposer<br />

receiving an incorrect score and not being selected as <strong>the</strong><br />

recommended contractor.<br />

c) A member of <strong>the</strong> Evaluation Committee demonstrated bias in<br />

<strong>the</strong> conduct of <strong>the</strong> evaluation<br />

d) Ano<strong>the</strong>r basis <strong>for</strong> review as provided by state or federal law;<br />

and<br />

4) The request <strong>for</strong> a Proposed Contractor Selection Review sets<br />

<strong>for</strong>th sufficient detail to demonstrate that, but <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department's<br />

alleged failure, <strong>the</strong> Proposer would have been <strong>the</strong> lowest cost,<br />

responsive and responsible bid or <strong>the</strong> highest-scored proposal, as<br />

<strong>the</strong> case may be.<br />

Upon completing <strong>the</strong> Proposed Contractor Selection Review, <strong>the</strong><br />

Department representative shall issue a written decision to <strong>the</strong><br />

Proposer within a reasonable time following receipt of <strong>the</strong> request<br />

<strong>for</strong> a Proposed Contractor Selection Review, and always be<strong>for</strong>e<br />

51

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!